Just War or Just Peace - Literature review Example

The Challenges of Humanitarian Intervention in the larger context of International Law Introduction There are certain times when the best of intentions conflict with the hard realities of a complex and pluralistic international stage.This essay will focus upon the realities and challenges behind the question of national sovereignty pertaining to the morality of humanitarian intervention. In this instance, humanitarian intervention will be contrasted with the concept of humanitarian aid – which in this context will refer to the delivery of foodstuffs and commonly requested medical supplies in the wake of a natural disaster or collapse of infrastructure. This form of intervention is rarely considered controversial, more complex is the consideration of a more aggressive method: humanitarian intervention in this sense will be defined as the use of armed forces as a means to secure humanitarian objectives or regime change for the purpose of alleviating immediate suffering on behalf of of the population. To establish an understanding of the moral and political challenges imposed by the question of humanitarian intervention, this essay will focus upon four thematic challenges that must be addressed concerning the purported legality of humanitarian intervention. The objective being a theoretical framework describing when and how such intervention could be justified. The four themes outline essential questions representing areas of active controversy. The controversy is described, solutions are sought within literature on the subject, and a hypothetical solution is constructed based on the content of the research. The counter-argument can be framed in terms of what is known as the Golden Rule: Do not inflict on others with you would not wish upon yourself. With the corollary being – if you wish others to aid you; it behooves you to give aid to those others. This is applicable on a national level, as well as on an individual basis. As much as any of us might desire rescue to come from afar during a disaster at little or no cost to ourselves; most countries would resent foreigners inserting foreign armies into their politics. The two sides of this principle underscore the controversies concerning humanitarian intervention, as the literature review will describe. Intervention in this sense is applicable occasionally to cases where a general breakdown in law and order occurs as a result of a natural disaster. However, it may more commonly be cited as a way to justify armed intervention in the region with diverse warring factions in order to alleviate physical extremity in the population at large as a result of the breakdown of governed infrastructure. Moreover, this concept could also be extended further as a means to correct the root causes of distress afflicting a civilian population – their government itself. There are regions of the world where suffering is ongoing not as a result of an earthquake or tsunami, but due to the inability of the civilian population to secure basic necessities as a result not only of fighting, but as a consequence of intentional government policy. One recent example is Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It was not a situation of chaos or civil war, but the realities of exercising dictatorial control over a population with ethnic distinctions and diverse religious agendas motivated a policy of physical repression and arbitrary execution which itself constituted an ongoing crisis for the population. Libya in addition also had an extremely unpopular dictator and who motivated his own population to take arms against him – would it have been more just for the international community to have shared that burden? Literature Review Intervention is a high and summary procedure which may sometimes snatch a remedy beyond the reach of law. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that in the case of Intervention, as that of Revolution, its essence is illegality, and its justification is its success. Of all things, at once the most unjustifiable and the most impolitic is an unsuccessful intervention. - Historicus, 1863 (From Chesterman, 2002, p.42) From a cynical perspective, the morality of intervention for the the victor is whether the effort succeeds. From a global perspective, military intervention from outsiders to achieve political objectives creates the possibility of further chaos with armed factions attempting to step into a possible power vacuum. It is arguable that a foreign power inserting itself into an internal conflict is tainted by the conflict and is likely to worsen the situation. On the other hand, an individual subject to execution in an Iraqi torture chamber at that moment would most certainly welcome regime change. This essay will focus upon four central themes relevant to the question of humanitarian intervention in a military capacity in order to alleviate a range of political causes for human suffering: 1.) National sovereignty. 2.) Exceptions to sovereignty. 3.) The morality of intervention. 4.) The Implementation of intervention. In each instance, challenges and lines of argument will be presented framing the questions inherent in each issue. Finally, a conclusion will unite the arguments in a proposed solution. 1.) As stated in the introduction, the first question is a relatively straightforward issue representing an outgrowth of what is termed the Golden rule in Western cultures: This concept is essential for political sovereignty as well, as expressed in a spectrum of religious traditions throughout history. The inhabitant of any individual country would not desire their national borders to be violated by agents or armies of another country for their own national interests, and thus should not impose the same fate on less powerful countries. If sovereignty is to be respected, this basic principle must inform international relations concerning issues of the rights of nations to govern themselves. Yet conversely the Golden rule implies a pro active element as well; if an individual resides in a country afflicted with a disaster and/or failure of infrastructure then a majority of individuals would desire assistance from other nations in order to prevent physical extremity and loss of life. Therefore, it is incumbent upon individuals that desire such assistance to render it when needed. The question of sovereignty hinges upon the determination of when such assistance is needed. If an isolationist religious minority within a larger government is subject to extermination, then anyone placing themselves within the context would simultaneously desire rescue, while the other side in such a conflict would resent the meddling of outsiders. But the highest interest is the good of the majority, rather than the good of their abusers (Annan, 1999). 2.) The most widely agreed exception to sovereignty within the context of humanitarian intervention would arguably be in the case of genocide, such as what was attempted in Rwanda (Annan, 1999). When a crisis unfolds with one population attempting the extermination of a distinguished minority population, deliberation and delay as effects a representative body has the potential to worsen the crisis by permitting more lives to be lost as consensus is built. The international community must devise a consistent rules of conduct in situations where it is legitimate to potentially violate the sovereignty and protection of the individual. The third section of this essay will discuss the challenges inherent to unilateral action. But for those facing imminent threat, the concept of respecting the rights of their oppressors would seem to ring hollow. But if an international body legitimizes without caveat invasions and interventions in less powerful countries, then the concept of sovereignty becomes effectively meaningless – and many more countries would be at risk from their neighbors. Indeed, 133 states are on record opposing a formal legalization for humanitarian military intervention (D.S.S. 2000). 3.) In regards to the third question of the argument, as a practical matter, it is necessary for the purpose of international relations to address these questions within the context of the United Nations, specifically the United Nations Security Council. Is it appropriate or practical to create international laws that regulate when and under what circumstances individual states may be justified to intervene in the case of humanitarian affairs? This situation is best characterized by questions of genocide. In this instance it is not difficult to find advocates that will argue in the affirmative position. Moreover there is the urgency of the situation to consider. Some disasters, such as the Asian tsunami will only disrupt the local infrastructure within a short timeframe, but in the case of genocide, the survival of the targeted population may also have a short timeframe. This underscores the necessity for a comprehensive policy to be established in advance. If other states with the willingness and capability to intervene in order to stop the genocide must engage in lengthy procedural debates over the political ramifications then it is possible that a window of opportunity will be lost. Noteworthy real world examples would be the situation in Iraq, as well as Kosovo. These two countries are representative of the two situations described in the introduction concerning the most probable environments for humanitarian intervention – chaos in Cozumel accompanied by intentional ethnic cleansing and the general state of multi-factional Civil War. Where as in Iraq attacks were launched against the Kurdish minority population with deliberate hostile intent by an intact government. The principle of humanitarian intervention leaves room for interpretation, as well as arbitrary application. It is not physically possible to stop every war in every country around the world that may or may not escalate into a conflict that imperils the civilian population, so any nation asserting the morality of humanitarian intervention must to some extent pick and choose which conflicts are worthwhile. This opens the possibility of skepticism concerning motivations (Diehl, 1992; Singer, 2000). And the invasion may be a cover for material motives as well as an outgrowth of long-standing hostilities (Vasquez, 1993). A persistent objection to Americas actions in the Middle-East is the suspicion that the actual goal is not about liberating the oppressed or stopping genocide, but to secure the free flow of petroleum resources. Critics would attest that a legal sanction of humanitarian intervention in a unilateral sense has the potential to foster a form of covert imperialism; whereby powerful nations find a new path to Empire by conquering lesser states under a theoretically justifiable pretext, but which imperils the long-term sovereignty of the liberatedcountry (Brown, 2000; Kritsiotis, 1998). But depending upon the structure of international law, it is possible for humanitarian intervention to serve a constructive purpose in a way that discourages the rise of new empires based on flimsy excuses for invading unstable countries. In the situation of a modern democracy, efforts must be made to formulate policies and national actions that are acceptable to a voting public, in addition to international law as defined by the United Nations. Therefore, if a state provides humanitarian justification for a foreign intervention that seems acceptable in a moral sense, international approval should be contingent on that country making good their promises. Critics contend that any formal justification will simply lead to more wars and subsequent loss of life, and at present, there is considerable objection to intervention academically, but these assumptions may be subject to change (Cassese, 2005; Gray, 2004). If the possibility of sanctions exist for breach of promise, or the loss of an international coalition to accomplish the military objectives for such a breach, then an incentive exists for the invader to honestly adhere to their promises. In this manner the pretext given for the attack then becomes a constraint making a power grab less likely. If the United States government does not truly seek to steal all of Iraqs oil for itself, then coalition support is dependent upon petroleum resources being openly available to all other countries without preferences. 4.) The issue of urgency also informs the fourth question. Who does or does not have the right to intervene in an environment where a population is threatened with genocide? Is it more ethical for intervention to be sanctioned by the same government with a crisis occurs, as in the case of East Timor? In this instance, international intervention has been approved by the United Nations, but only as a result of securing the permission of the larger Indonesian government. This is a reasonable guide post for such intervention, but it does not help us resolve situations where the larger government is itself responsible for genocide against the disadvantaged minority population within its borders. Nor does it resolve situations where there is no clear national government able to give permission on anything. This question informs the definition of statehood. Among the questions that the international community must address in the future is the development of a comprehensive rubric in terms of absolute human rights that transcend national sovereignty – and whether such a concept exists or is enforceable. If a Muslim state is in a condition of violent disarray, is international intervention more ethical if a consensus is reached by neighboring Muslim states? What is needed is a discussion on the rights of the individual versus national sovereignty. Any international body seeking to put itself in a position of the legal arbiter of international law must develop definitive guidelines for when violations of the rights of any individual are severe enough to justify acting against the wishes of a national government, assuming such a government exists in the region. Add to this a monitoring or tracking process and the possibility exists of formulating a rational response mechanism for the legitimate intervention in the interest of the preservation of human life (Senese & Vasquez, 2003). Conclusion The proposals outlined within the third argument of this analysis forms the basis for a practical strategy to address the morality of humanitarian intervention. First of all, the United Nations or similar international body should designate certain occurrences as human rights violations which transcend the rights of sovereignty when and where they occur. This should include documented instances of deliberate genocide against a recognizable minority population. Once genocide has been defined, the question still remains of who should be able to intervene and under what circumstances. For the purposes of the international community, monitoring standards should be imposed when and where a more powerful nations or coalition of nations intends to intervene up for humanitarian purposes in a region where genocide is a possibility. Whatever pretext the invader claims as a moral justification for the military action should be evaluated by an international body, and codified. If the justification for an invasion is to ensure that threaten civilian populations receive access to food aid, then monitors should ensure that the invaders hold true to this stated intent. No modern democracy in the current political climate would openly claim that their intent is to rule over another nation for the sake of Empire, and if an invading nation in fact denies this purpose, then an international body should monitor the extent of their military involvement for the purpose of documenting legitimate benchmarks towards the restoration of sovereignty within the occupied nation after the physical crisis has abated. Sanctions or withdrawal of support in addition to international condemnation should follow if prearranged benchmarks are not met. This strategy should prove a reasonable standard with respect to the military actions of democratic societies, but different discussions would become necessary in the event of military adventurism by governments not limited by popular votes. References Annan, K. 1999. Two concepts of sovereignty. The Economist. 18 September, 1999. - Brown, B.S., 2000. Humanitarian Intervention at a Crossroads, 41 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1683, 1727 (2000) Cassese, A., 2005. International Law. 373-74 (2d ed. 2005). Chesterman, S. (2002) Just War or Just Peace? (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Declaration of the South Summit, D.S.S. (2000). Havana, Cuba, Apr. 10-14, 2000, para. 54. Diehl, P.F., 1992. What Are They Fighting for? The Importance of Issues in International Conflict Research, 29 J. PEACE RES. 333,337 (1992); Gray, C. 2004. International Law and the use of force. 99 (2d ed. 2004); MURPHY, supra note 2, at 366; Stromseth, supra note 14, at 233; cf INDEP. INTL COMMN ON INTERVENTION AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY, supra note 19, at 15-16, 47-51. Kritsiotis, D. 1998. Reappraising Policy Objections to Humanitarian Intervention, 19 MICH. J. INTL L. 1005, 1020 (1998). Senese, P.D., Vasquez, J.A.,2003. A Unified Explanation of Territorial Conflict: Testing the Impact of Sampling Bias, 1919-1992, 47 INTL STUD. Q. 275,287 (2003). - Singer, D.J. 2000. The Etiology of Interstate War: A Natural History Approach, in What do we know about war? 3, 19-20. Vasquez, J.A. 1993. The War Puzzle. 199 (1993), Read More